Hi WG/authors,

My understanding is this draft proposes allocation of per VTN resource-aware 
SID for each topological element in a network.

This means a specific node may carry per VTN state (in control plane and 
dataplane) for each topological element (node or link).
In general, to avoid state explosion, SR endorses carrying additional 
information/context inside the packet.

In draft-bestbar-spring-scalable-ns, we propose to carry a separate ID inside 
the packet that allows a node to identify the packet belonging to 
slice-aggregate (or VTN). This decouples SR SIDs used to steer on topological 
elements from the dataplane ID needed to infer a slice-aggregate (or VTN) so to 
enforce a specific forwarding treatment. This avoids the per VTN SID state 
explosion in control and data plane.

Also, when resource allocation/reservation is strictly done in the control 
plane, it appears per VTN resource SIDs would not serve any further benefit. In 
fact, a PCE or ingress can readily use the regular SIDs to steer any packet 
along a specific path that satisfies the requested resources guarantees as 
verified in the control plane.

Lastly, I draw your attention to draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet which proposes a 
network wide slice policy as a vehicle that allows allocation of control and/or 
dataplane resources for each slice-aggregate (or VTN) on specific network 
elements.

Regards,
Tarek

On 1/27/21, 6:46 AM, "spring on behalf of James Guichard" 
<spring-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of 
james.n.guich...@futurewei.com<mailto:james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>> wrote:

Dear WG:

This message starts a 2 week WG adoption call for 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn/ ending 
February 10th 2021.

After review of the document please indicate support (or not) for WG adoption 
to the mailing list and if you are willing to work on the document, please 
state this explicitly. This gives the chairs an indication of the energy level 
of people in the working group willing to work on this document. Please also 
provide comments/reasons for your support (or lack thereof) as this is a 
stronger way to indicate your (non) support as this is not a vote.

Thanks!

Jim, Bruno & Joel





Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Reply via email to